tv Vice Presidential Debate CBS October 11, 2012 6:00pm-8:00pm PDT
captioning sponsored by cbs >> the work ahead will be hard. these times demand the best of all of us. >> america is coming back! and we're not going back. >> if you can't get it right, it's time to get out. >> we've got to lift the burden off the back of the middle class. >> we can turn this thing around. we can get this right. >> it is never been a good bet to bet against the american people. >> campaign 2012, the vice presidential debate. here is scott pelley. >> pelley: good evening. in the race for the white house, the presidential candidates are passing their batons to their running mates, just for tonight. the vice presidential nominees are facing off in their one and only debate. the democratic incumbent, 69-year-old joe biden of delaware, and his republican challenger, 42-year-old paul ryan, the seven-term congressman from wisconsin and chairman of the house budget committee.
they're meeting at centre college in danville, kentucky, and the folks there call this thrill in the ville 2 because centerhosted a debate in 2000 as well. no vice presidential debate ever changed the course of a campaign. but this one could be different. there is pressure on both men, congressman ryan to keep mitt romney's momentum going, and vice president biden to stop that momentum. the moderator tonight is martha raddatz, and for this debate the candidates will be seated at the table. >> good evening, and welcome to the first and only vice presidential debate of 2012s sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. i'm martha raddatz of abc news, and i am honored to moderate this debate between two moan who have dedicated much of their lives to public service. tonight's debate is divided between domestic and foreign policy issues. and i'm going to move back and
forth between foreign and domestic since that is what a vice president or president would have to do. we will have nine different segments. at the beginning of each segment, i will ask both candidates a question, and they will each have two minutes to answer. then i will encourage a discussion between the candidates with follow-up questions. by coin toss, it has been determined that vice president biden will be first to answer the opening question. we have a wonderful audience here at centre college tonight. you will no doubt hear their enthusiasm at the end of the debate, and right now as we vehicle vice president joe biden and congressman paul ryan. ( applause ) >> anniversary nice to see you. anniversary nice to see you. >> how you doing.
>> you got your little wave to the families in. that's great. good evening, gentlemen. it really is an honor to be here with both of you. i would like to begin with libya. on a rather som bell note, one month ago tonight, on the anniversary of 9/11, ambassador chris stevens and three other brave americans were killed in a terrorist attack in benghazi. the state department has now made clear there were no protesters there. it was a preplanned assault by heavily armed men. wasn't this a massive intelligence failure, vice president biden? >> i what it was was a tragedy, martha. chris stevens was one of our best. we lost three other brave americans, and i can make absolutely two commitments to you and all the american people tonight. one, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this. and secondly, we will get to the bottom of it, and whatever-- wherever the facts lead us,
wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the american public because whatever mistakes were made, will not be made again. when you're looking at a president, martha, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. that's caring for the national security of the country. and the best way to do that is take a look at how he's handled the issue of the day. on iraq, the president said he would end the war. governor romney said that was a tragic mistake. we should have left-- he ended it. governor romney said that was a tragic mistake. we should have left 30,000 troops there. with regard to afghanistan, he said he will end the war in 2014. governor romney said we should not set a date, number one. and number two, regard to 2014 it fend. when it came to osama bin laden remember the president the first day in office, i was sitting with him in the oval office and he called in the c.i.a. and signed an order and said my highest priority is to get bin laden. prior to the election, prior to
him being sworn in, governor romney was asked how he would proceed. he said he wouldn't move heaven and earth to get bin laden. he didn't understand it was more than taking a murderer off the battle field. it was about restoring america's heart and letting terrorists around the world know if you do harm to america, we will track you to the gates of hell, if need be. and lastly, the president of the united states has-- has led with a steady hand and clear vision. governor romney, the opposite. the last thing we need now is another war. >> congressman ryan. >> we mourn the loss of these four americans who were murdered. when you take a look at what has happened just in the last few weeks, they sent u.n. ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a youtube video. it took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack. he went to the u.n. and in his speech at the u.n. he said six times he talked about the
youtube video. look, if we're hit by terrorists we're going to call it for what it is-- a terrorist attack. our ambassador in paris has a marine detachment guarding him. shouldn't we have a marine detachment guarding our ambassador in benghazi, a place where we knew that there was an al qaeda cell with arms? this is becoming more troubling by the day. they first blamed the youtube video. now they're trying to blame the romney-ryan ticket with making this an issue. with respect to iraq. we had the same position before the withdrawal was we agreed with the obama administration. let's have a status of forces agreement to make shiewrp we secure our gains. the vice president was put in charge of those negotiation by president obama and they failed to get agreement. we don't have an agreement because they fail to get one. that's what we are talking about. and when it comes to our veterans, we owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they've done for us, including
your son, beau, but we also want to make sure we don't lose the things we fought so hard to get. with respect to afghanistan the 2014 deadline, we agree with the 2014 transition, but what we also want to do is make sure we're not projecting weakness abroad. and that's what's happening here. this benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself, but, unfortunately, it's indicative of a broader problem. and that is what we are watching on our tv screens is the unravel other of the obama foreign policy which is making the more chaotic and us less safe. >> i just want to talk to you about right in the middle of the crisis, governor romney-- and you're talking about this again tonight-- talked about the weakness, talked about apologies from the obama administration. was that really appropriate right in the middle of the crisis? >> on that same day, the obama administration had the exact same position. let's recall that they disavowed their own statement that they had put up earlier in the day in
cairo. so we had the same position. it's never too early to speak out for our values. we should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting when the mullahs in iran were attacking their people. we should not have assad a reformer when he was turning his russian-provide guns on his own people. we should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights. and we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts because what that does, when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we're fighting our own defense it makes us more weak. it projects weakness, and when we look weak our adversaries are much more willing to test us-- >> with all drew respect, that's a bunch of malarkey. >> and why is that so? >> not a single thing he said is rack rat. >> first of all,-- >> be specific. >> i will be very specific. number one, this lecture on embassy security. the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300
million below what we asked for, number one. so much for the embassy security piece. number two, governor romney before he knew the facts before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out naiking a political statement which was panned by the media around the world. and this talk about this-- this weakness. i don't understand what my friend's talking about here. we-- this is a president who has gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do. this is a guy who has repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. this is the guy who brought the entire world, including russia and china to bring about the most devastating, most devastating the most devastating efforts on iran to make sure that they in fact stop-- look, i-- i just eye mean, these guys bet against america all the time. >> can we talk-- let me go back to lib yoo. what were you first told about the attack?
why-- why were people talking about protests when people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. why did that go on for weeks. >> that's exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. the intelligence community total us that. as they learned more facts about exactly what happened. they changed their assessment. that's why there's also an investigation headed by tom pickering, a leading diplomat from the reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there are any lapses, what the lapses were, so they will never happen again. >> and they wanted more security there. >> we weren't told they wanted more security we did not know they wanted more security. by the way, at the time, we were told exactly, we said exactly what the intelligence community told us. that they knew. that was the assessment. and as the intelligence community community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. that's why i said we will get to the bottom of this. you know, usually when there's a
crise, we pull together. we pull together as a nation. but as i said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor is holding a press conference, was holding a press conference. that's not presidential leadership. >> mr. ryan, i want to ask you, about the romney campaign talks a lot about no apologizes. he has a book called no apologies. should the u.s. have apologized for americans burning korans in afghanistan? should the u.s. apologize for u.s. marines urinating on taliban corpses? >> oh, gosh, yes. urinating on taliban corpses. >> burning korans immediately. >> what we should not be policying for is standing up for our values. what we should not be doing is saying want egyptian people, while mubarak is cracking down on them is a good guy and the next week say we ought to go. what we should not be doing is rejecting claims for calls for more security in our barracks in our marine-- we need marines in
benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need for forces for security purpose there were requests for extra security. those requests were not honored. look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. it was libya, a country we knew we had al qaeda cells there. as we know al qaeda and its affiliates are on the rise in northern africa, and we did not give our ambassador in benghazi a marine detachment? of course there's an investigation so we can make sure this never happens again. but when it comes to speak up for our values, we should not apologize for those. here's the problem-- look at all the various issues out there and it's unraveling before our eyes. the vice president talks about sanctions on iran. they got-- we've. >> . >> let's move to iran. i'd actually like to move to iran because there's really no bigger national security. >> absolutely. >> this country is facing. both president obama and governor romney have said they will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if that means military action. last week, former defense secretary bob gates said a
strike on iran's facilities would not work and "could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations." can the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the american people how effective would a military strike be? congressman ryan. >> we cannot allow iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. now, let's take a look at where we've come from. when barack obama was elected, they had enough nuclear material to make one bomb. now they have enough for five. they're racing toward a nuclear weapon. they're four years closer toward a nuclear weapon capability. we've had four different sanctions, three from the bush administration, one here, and the only reason we got it is because russia watered it down and prevented the sanctions from hitting the central bank. mitt romney proposed these sanctions in 2007. i have been fighting for the sanctions in 2009. the administration was blocking us every step of the way.
only because we had strong bipartisan support for these tough sanctions were we able to overrule and put them in spite of the administration. imagine what would have happened if we had these sanctions in place earlier. you think iran's not brazen. look at what they're doing. they're stepping up their terrorist attacks. they tried a terrorist attack in the united states last year when they tried to blow up the saudi ambassador at a restaurant in washington, d.c. and talk about credibility. when this administration says that all options are on the table, they send out senior administration officials that send all these mixed signals. and so in order to solve this peacefully, which is everybody's goal, you have to have the ayatollahs change their minds. look where they are. they're moving faster towards a nuclear weapon. it's because this administration has no credibility on this issue. it's because this administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us from putting the tough sanctions into place. now we have them in place because of congress. they say the military option is on the table but it's not being viewed as credible, but the key
to do this peacefully is make sure we have credibility. in a romney administration we will have credibility on this issue. >> vice president biden. >> it's incredible. look, imagine had we let republican congress work out the sanctions. you think there's any possibility the entire world would have joined us, russia and china, all of our allies? these are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. period. when governor romney is asked about it, he said we have to keep these sanctions. he says you're talking about doing more. you want to go to war. >> we want to prevent war. >> how are they going to prevent war. they say there's nothing more that they say we should do than what we've already done, number one. and number two, with regard to the ability of the united states to take action militarily, it is-- it is not in my purview to talk about classified information, but we feel quite
confident we could deal a serious blow to the iranians. but number two, the iranians are the-- the israeli and the united states our military intelligence communities are absolutely the same exact place in terms of how close, how close the iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. they are a good way away. view andno difference between our view and theirs. when my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20% up, and then they have to be able to have something to put it in. there is no weapon that the iranians have at this point. both the both the israelis and we know we'll know if they start the process of building a weapon. so all this bluster i keep hearing and all this loose talk, what are they talking about? are you talking about to be more credible? what more can the president do, stand before the united nations, tell the whole world, directly
communicate to the ayatollah, we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon. period. unless he's talking about going to war. >> martha. let's just-- >> congressman ryan. >> let's look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. what do they see? they see this administration trying to water down sanctions in congress for over two years. they're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. they're spinning the centrifuges faster. they see us saying when we come into the administration, when they're sworn in, we need more space with our ally israel. they see president obama in new york city the same day netanyahu is, and instead of meeting with him goes on a daily talk show. they say when we say these options are the table, the secretary of defense walked them back. they are not changing their mind. that's what we have to do is change their minds so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons. >> how do you do it stow quickly. look, you both saw benjamin
netanyahu hold up that picture of a bomb with a red line and talking about the red line being in spring. so can you solve this if the romney-ryan ticket is elected, can you solve this in two months before spring and avoid nuclear-- >> we can debate a timeline. we can debate the timeline whether it's that sort a time or longer. i agree that it's probably longer. number two. it's all-- >> you don't agree with that bomb. vice president biden. >> i can't go into classified stuff, but we both agree that to do this peacefully you have to get them to change their minds. they're not changing their minds. and look at what this administration-- >> let me tell you what the itoll as, the ayatollah sees his economy being crippled. the ayatollah sees there are 50% fewer exports of oil. he sees the currency going into the tank. he sees the economy going in a free-fall, and he sees the world for the first time totally united in opposition to him
getting a nuclear weapon. now with regard to bb he's been my friend for 39 years. the president has met with bb as much as he's spoken to anybody. just before he went to the u.n. i was in a conference call with the president-- with him talking to bb for well over an hour. and-- and-- in stark relieve, in detail of what was going on. this is a bunch of stuff. look, here's the deal-- >> what does that mean it's of a bunch of stuff. >> it's irish. >> it is. we irish call it malarkey. >> thanks for the translation. >> the irish call it malarkey. last thing, the secretary of defense has made it absolutely clear-- he didn't walk anything back. we will not allow the iranians to get a nuclear weapon. what bb held up there was when they get to the point where they can enrich uranium enough to put into a weapon. they don't have a weapon to put it into. let's all calm down a little bit
here. iran is more isolated today than when we talk office. it was on the ascendancy when we took office. it is totally isolated. i don't know what world these guys are in. >> thank heavens we have these sanctions in place. it's in spite of hir opposition. all i have to point to are the results. they're four years closer toward a nuclear weapon. i made-- >> you can tell the american people what's worse another war in the middle east-- >> they're not closer to a nuclear weapon they're closer to being able to get enough fissile material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon. >> you're acting a little bit like they don't want one. >> no, i'm not saying that. facts matter, martha. you're a foreign policy expert. facts matter. all this loose talk about them all they have to do is get to enriched uranium in a certain amount and they have a weapon. not true. not true. they are more-- and if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we will have the
world behind us, and that matters. that matters. >> what about bob gates' statement? let me read that again. "could prove catastrophic haunting us for generations." >> he is right, it could prove catastrophic. >> congressman ryan. >> it undermines our credibility by back up the point when we make it that all options are on the table. that's the point. the ayatollahs see these kind of stationstatements and they thinm going to get a nuclear weapon. when we see the kind of equivocation that took place because this administrationmented a precondition policy so when the green revolution started up, they were silent for nine days. when they see us putting deps-- when they see us putting daylight between ourselveses and our allies in israel, that gives them encouragement. when they see russia watering down any furkt sanctions-- the only reason we got a u.n.
sanction is because russia watered it down. when they see this kind of activity, they are encouraged to continue. >> market alet me tell you-- >> let me ask you what's worse-- war in the middle east, another war in the middle east or a nuclear armed iran. >> a nuclear armed iran, which triggers a nuclear arms race in the middle east. this is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. ... wiping an entire country off the map. they call us the great satan. if they get nuclear weapons other people in the neighborhood will pursue their nuclear weapons as well. we can't live with that. >> vice president biden. >> war should always be the absolute last resort. these why these crippling sanctions which bb netanyahu said we should continue, which if i'm not mistaken, governor romney said we should continue. he changes his mind so often, i could be wrong. the fact of the matter is, he says they're working. and the fact is they are being
crippled by them, and we've made it clear, big nations can't f.uff. this president doesn't bluff. >> gentlemen, i want to bring the conversation to a different kind of national security issue, the state of our economy. the number one issue here at home is jobs. the percentage of unemployed just fell below 8% for the first time in 43 months. the obama administration had projected that it would fall below 6% now after the addition of close to $1 trillion in stimulus money. so will both of you level with the american people. you can get unemployment to under 6%. and how long will it take? >> i don't know how long it will take. we can and we will get it under 6%. let's take a look at the facts. let's look at where we were when we came into office. the economy was in freefall. we had the great recession hit. nine million people lost their
jobs. $1.6 trillion in wealth lost in equity in your homes and retirement accounts for the middle class. we knew we had to act for the mill class. we immediately went out and rescued general motors. we went ahead and made sure we cut taxes for the middle class. and in addition to that, when that occurred, what did romney do? romney said, no, let detroit go bankrupt. we moved in and help people refinance their homes. governor romney said no, let foreclosures hit the bottom. but it shouldn't be surprising for a guy who says 47% of the american people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. my friend recently nay speech in washington said 30% of the american people are takers. these people are my mom and dad, the people i grew up with, my neighbors. they pay more effective tax than governor romney pays in his federal income tax. they are elderly people who in fact are living off of social security. they are veterans and people fighting in afghanistan right now who are-- quote-- not paying any taxes. i've had it up to here with this notion that 47%-- it's about
time they take some responsibility here. and instead of sign pledges to grover norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class, we're going to level the playing field. we're going to give you a fair shot again. we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past. by having a different set of rules for with the and main street, making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super wealthy. they're pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. and they're holding hostage the middle class tax cut because they say we won't pass, we won't continue the middle class tax cut unless you give the tax cut for the super wellie. it's about time they take some responsibility. >> mr. ryan. >> joe and i are from similar towns. he's from scranton, pennsylvania.
i'm from jamesville in wisconsin. you know what the unemployment rate in scranton is today? >> i sure do. >> 10%. >> you know what it was the day you guys came in, 8.5%. that's how it's going all around america. >> you don't read the statistics. that's not how it's going. it's going down. >> this is his two-minute answer, please. did they come in and inherit a tough situation. absolutely. but we're going in the wrong direction. look at where we are. the economy is barely limping along. it's growing at 1.3%. that's slower than it grew last year, and last year was slower than the year before. job growth in september was slower than pfs in august, and august was slower than it was in july. we're heading in the wrong direction. 23 million americans are struggling for work today. 15% of americans are living in poverty today. this is not what a real recovery looks like. we need real reforms for real recovery, and that's exactly what mitt romney and i are proposing. it's a five-point plan.
get america energy independent in the north america by the end of the decade. help people who are hurting get the skills they need to get jobs they want. get this deficit and debt under control to prevent a debt crise. make trade work for america so we can make more things in america and sell them overseas and champion small businesses. don't raise taxes on small businesses because they're our job creators. he talks about detroit. mitt romney is a car guy. they keep misquoting him, but let me tell you about the mitt romney i know. this is a guy who i was talking to a family in northboro, massachusetts, the other day. sheryl and mark nixon. their kids were hit in a car crash, four of them, two of them, rob and reid, were paralyzed. the romneys didn't know them. they went to the same church. mitt asked if he could come over on christmas. he brought his boys, his wife, and gifts. later on he said, "i know you're struggling, mark. don't worry about their college. i'll pay for it." when mark told me this story, because you know what, mitt romney doesn't tell this story.
the nixons told this story. when he told me this story. he said it wasn't the cash help. it's that he gave his time and he has consistently. this is a man who gave 30% of his sphwk to charity, more than the two of us combined. mitt romney is a good man. he cares about 100% of americans in this country. with respect to that quote, i think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don't come out of your mouth the right way. ( laughter ). >> but i always say what i mean. and so does romney. >> we want everybody to succeed. we want to get people out of poverty, in the middle class, and self-sufficiency. that's what we're going to push for. >> vice president, i have a feeling you have a few things to say here. >> the idea if you heard that little soliloquy on 47%, you think he just made a mistake. then i think-- i have a bridge to sell you. look, i don't doubt his personal
generosity. and i understand what it's like. when i was a little younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident, killed my daughter, and my wife and my two sops survived. i have sat in the hoamedz of many people who have gone through what i went through because the one thing you can give people solice is to know if they know you've been through it, they can make it. i don't doubt his personal commitment to individuals. but you know what? i know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. he just-- he said let it go bankrupt. period. let it drop out. all this talk. we saved a million jobs. 200,000 people are work today. and i've never met two guys down on america across the board. we're told everything's going badly. 5.2 million new jobs, private sector jobs. we need more. but 5.2 million. if they'd get out of the way, if they'd get out of the way and
let us pass the tax cut for the middle class, make it permanent. if they get out of the way and pass the jobs bill. if they get out of the way and aallow 14 million people struggling to stay in their home because their mortgage is upside down when they never missed a mortgage payment. just get out of the way. stop talking about how you care about people. show me something. show me a policy. show me a policy where you take responsibility. and by the way, they talk about this great recession as if it fell out of the guy. like oh, my goodness! where did it come from? it came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. i was there. i vote against them. i said, no, we can't afford that. and now all of a sudden these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created. >> congressman ryan. >> let's not forget that they came in with one-party control.
when barack obama was elected, his party controlled everything. they had the ability to do everything of their choosing and look where we are right now. they passed stimulus. the idea that we could borrow $831 billion, spend it on all these special interest groups and that it would work out just fine. that unemployment would never get to 8%. it went up above 8% for 43 months. they said right now if we just passed the stimulus the economy would grow at 4%. it's growing at 1.3. >> when could you get it below 6%? >> that's when our entire premise of our pro growth plan for the stronger middle class is all about. get the economy going, 12 million jobs. look at the $90 million in stimulus. the vice president was in charge overseeing this. $90 million in green pork to campaign contributors and special interest groups. just at the department of energy, over 100 criminal investigations that have been launched-- >> martha. >> go ahead, market alook, his colleagues is on an
investigative committee spent months and months and months-- >> this is the inspector general. >> months and months. they found no evidence of cronyism. and i love my friend here. i-- i'm not allowed to show letters, but go on our web site. he sent me two letters saying, "by the way, you can send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of wisconsin?" we sent millions of dollars. you know why he-- >> you did ask for stimulus money, correct. >> sure he can. >> we advocated for constituents applying for grants. that's what we do. we do that for all constituents. >> i love that. i love that. this is such a bad program and he writes me letter-- writes the department of energy saying the reason we need this stimulus it will create growth and jobs. his words. and now he's sitting here looking at me. and by the way, that program, again, investigated, what the congress said was it was a model. less than .4% waste or fraud in the program.
and all this talk about cronyism. they investigated and investigated and did not find one single piece of evidence. i wish they would just tell-- be a little more candid. >> was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on electric cars in finland or windmills in china? was it a good idea to borrow money from countries like chine and spend it on all these various interes interests group. >> moody's and others said this was exactly what we needed to stop us from going off the cliff. it set the conditions to be able to grow again. we have in fact 4% of those green jobs didn't go under-- went under, it didn't work. it's a better batting average than investment bankers have. they have about 40%. >> where are the five million green jobs-- >> i want to move on to medicare and entitlements. i think we've gone over this quite enough. >> by the way, any letter you send me, i'm entertain. >> i appreciate that, joe. >> ( laughter ) >> let's talk about medicare and entitlements. both medicare and social
security are going broke and taking a larger care share of the budget in the process. will benefits fors under these programs have to change for the programs to survive, mr. ryan. >> absolutely. medicare and social security are going bankrupt. these are indisputable facts. when i look at these programs, we've all had tragedies in our lives. i think what they've done for my own family. my mom and i had my grandmother move in for us facing alzheimer's. medicare was there. just like it's there for my mom. after my dad died my mom and i got social security survivor benefits. it helped her go back to college in her 50 where is she started a small business because of the new skills she got. she paid all of her taxes on the promise that these programs would be there for her. we'll honor this promise and the best way to do it is reform it for my generation. you see, if you reform these programs for my generation, people 54 and below, you can guarantee they don't change for people in or near retirement
which is precisely what mitt romney and i are proposing. look what obamacare does. obamacare takes $716 billion from medicare to spend on obamacare. even their own chief acuary at medicare backs this up. he says you can't spend the same dollar twice. you can't claim this money goes to medicare and obamacare. and then they put this new obamacare board in cutting medicare each and every year in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors. this board, by the way, it's 15 people. the president is supposed to appoint them next year. and not one of them even has to have medical training. and social security, if we don't shore up social security, when we run out of the i.o.u.s when the program goes bankrupt, a 25% across-the-board benefit cut kicks in on seniors in the middle of their retirement. we're going to stop that from happening. they have haven't put a credible solution on the table. he'll tell you about vouchers. he'll say all these things to try to scare people. here's what we're saying.
give younger people when they become medicare eligible guaranteed coverage option thalz you can't be denierkd including traditional medicare. choose your plan, and medicare subsidizes your premiums. not as much for the wealthy people. more coverage for middle-income people and total out-of-pocket coverage for the poor and sick. we would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their medicare is delivered to them instead of 15 bureaucrats deciding what, if, when, there, they get it. >> i heard that death penalty argument from sarah palin. it seems every vice presidential debate we hear this stuff about panels. let's talk about medicare. what we did is saved $716 billion and put it back, applied it to medicare. we cut the cost of medicare. we stopped over-paying insurance companies when doctors and hospitals. the a.m.a. supported what we did. a.a.r.p. endorsed what we did. and it extended the life of medicare to 2024. they want to wipe this all out.
it also gave more benefits. any senior out there ask yourself-- do you have more benefits today? you do. if you're near the donut hole you have $600 more to help your prescription drug cost. you get wellness visits without co-pays. they wipe all of this out and medicare becomes insolvent in 2016. number one. number two, guaranteed benefit. it's a voucher. when they first proposed-- when the congressman had his first voucher program the c.b.o. said it could worst $6,400 a year, market amore for every senior, 55 and below when they got there. he knew that, yet he got all the guys in congress and women in the republican party to vote for it. governor romney, knowing that said, "i would sign it were i there. who do you believe? the a.m.a., me, a guy who has fought his whole life for this, or somebody who would actually put in motion a plan that knowingly cuts-- added $6,400 a
year more to the cost of medicare. now they've got a new plan. trust me. it's not going to cost you anymore. folks, follow your instincts on this one. and with regard to social security, we will not-- we will not privatize it. if we had listened to romney, governor romney and the congressman during the bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market. their ideas are old and their ideas are bad, and they eliminate the guarantee of medicare. >> here's the problem. they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar turning medicare into a piggy bank for obamacare. their own acuary from the administration came to congress and said one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this. >> that's not what they said. >> 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose the current medicare advantage coverage they have-- that's a $3200 benefit cut. >> that didn't happen. more people signed up.
>> these are from your own acuaries. >> more people signed up for medicare advantage after the change. >> mr. vice president, i know-- >> no, this isn't time. --is is a little-- >> i know you're under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but i think people would be better served if we don't keep sphwrupting each other. don't take all the four minute then. we're saying don't change benefits for people 55 and above. they already organized their retirement around it. >> let me ask you this-- what is your specific plan for seniors who really can't afford to make up the difference in the value of what you call a premium support plan and others call a voucher? >> 100% coverage for them. >> and what will it cost-- >> that's what we're saying. >> how do you make up that. >> by take down the subsidies for wealthy people. look, this is a plan-- by the way, that 6400 number. it was misleading them. it's totally inaccurate now. this is a plan that's bipartisan. it's a plan i put together with a prominent democrat senator from oregon. >> there's not one democrat who
endorses this. one of not one democrat. >> our partner is a democrat from oregon. >> and he said he no longer supports it. >> we put it together with the former clinton budget director. >> who disavows it. >> this idea came from the clinton commission to save medicare chaired by senator john breaux. >> which was rejected. >> if we don't fix this problem soon current seniors get cut. 10,000 people are retiring every day in america and they will for 20 years. >> martha, if we just did one thing-- if they just allow medicare to bargain for the cost of drugs like medicaid can, that would save $156 billion right off the bat. >> and it would deny seerpz choices. >> seniors are not denied-- >> absolutely. >> they are not denied. look, folks, all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices? have you lost medicare advantage. >> because it's working well
now. >> vice president biden, if it could help solve the problem, why not very slowly raise the medicare eligibility age by two years as congressman ryan suggests? >> i was there when we did that with social security in 1983. i was one of eight people sitting in the room that included tip o'neill negotiating with president reagan. we all got together, and everybody said as long as everybody's in the deal, everybody's in the deal, and everybody is making some sack fireworks we can find a way. we made the system solvent to 2033. we will not, though, be part of any voucher plan eliminating-- the voucher says, mom, when you're 65, go out there, shop for the best insurance you can get. you're out of medicare. you can buy back in, if you want with this voucher, which will not keep pace, will not keep pace with health care costs. because if it did keep pace with health care costs there would be no savings. that's why they go the voucher. they-- we will be no part of a voucher program or the
privatization of social security. >> a voucher is you go to your mailbox and get a check and buy something. nobody is proposing that. barack obama four years ago, running for president said, if you don't have any fresh ideas, use stale tactics to scare voters. if you don't have a good record to run on, paint your opponent as someone people should run from. >> you were one of the few lawmakers to stand with president bush when he was seeking to partially privatize social security. >> for younger people. what we said then and what i've always agreed is let younger americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the social security system. that's not what mitt romney is proposing. what we're saying is no changes for anybody 55 or bof. >> what mitt romney is proposing. >> and the kinds of changes we're talking about for younger people like myself is don't increase the benefits for wealthy people as fast as everybody else. >> martha. >> slowly raise the retirement age over time. >> martha. >> they wouldn't get to 70 until
the year 2103. >> quickly, vice president. >> quickly. the bottom line here is that all the studies show if we went with social security proposal made by mitt romney, if you're 40-- in your 40s now, you'll pay $2600-- you get $2600 less in social security. if you're in your 20s now you get 4700 less. the idea of changing and change being in this case to cut the benefits for people without taking other action you can do to make it work is absolutely the wrong way. these-- look, these guys haven't been big on medicare from the beginning. their party's not been big on medicare from the beginning. and they've always been about social security as little as you can do. look, folks, use your common sense. who do you trust on this? a man who introduced a bill that would raise it 6400 a year, knowing it, and passing it, and romney saying he's sign it. or me and the president? >> that statistic was completely
misleading. more importantly-- >> this is the fact. >> this is what politicians do when they don't have a record to run on. try to scare the people from voting for you. >> medicare has-- >> we're going to move on. a very simple question-- >> med scare and social security did so much for my own family. we are not going to jeopardize this program but we have to save it. >> are you jeopardizing the program. you're changing the program from a guaranteed benefit to a premium support-- whatever you call it. the bottom line is people are going to have to pay more money out of their pocket and the families i know, and the families i come from, they don't have the money to pay more. >> that's why we're saying more for lower income people and less for higher income people. >> i would like to move on to a very simple question for both of you, and something tells me i won't get a very simple answer. but let me ask you this. >> i gave you a simple answer. they'll raise medicare. >> if your ticket is elected, who will pay more in taxes and
who will pay less? >> the middle class will pay less, and people making $1 million or more will contribute slightly more. the continuation of the bush tax cuts. we're arguing bush tack cuts for the wealthy be allowed to expire. of that, $800 billion ms. gz to that to those making a minimum of $1 million. we see no justification-- they're patriotic american positive upon they're not asking for continued tax cut. they were not suggesting it, but my friends are insisting on it. 120,000 families by continuing that tax cut, will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next 10 years, and their income is an average of $8 million. we want to extend permanently the middle-class tax cut for-- permanently. from the bush middle-class tax cut. these guys won't allow us to. you know what they're saying-- we say let's have a vote on the
middle-class tax cut and on the upper tax cut. let's go ahead and vote on it. they're saying no. they're holding hostage the middle class tax cuts for the super wealthy. and on top of that they've got another tax cut coming. that's $5 trillion all of the studies point out will in fact give another $250 million-- yeah, $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families and raise taxes for people who are middle income with a child by $2,000 a year. this is unconscionable. there is no need for this. the middle class got knocked on their heels. the great recession crushed them. they need some help now. the last people who need help are 120,000 families for another-- another $500 billion tax cut over the next 10 years. >> congressman. >> our entire premise of these tax reform plans is to grow the economy and create jobs. it's a plan that's estimated to
create seven million jobs. now, we think that government taking 28% of a family and business' income is enough. president obama thinks that the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8% of a small business' income. look, if you taxed every person in successful small businesses making over $250,000 at 100%, it only runs the government for 98 days. if everybody who paid income taxes last year, including successful small businesses, doubled their income taxes this year, we'd still have a $300 billion deficit. you see, there aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending. and so the next time you hear them say, don't worry about it. we'll get a few wealthy people to pay their fair share. watch out, middle class. the tax bill is coming to you. that's why we're saying we need fundamental tax reform. let's take a look at it this way. eight out of 10 businesses, they
file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations, and where i come from, overseas, which is lake superior, the canadians, they drop their tax rates to 15%. the average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25%, and the president wants the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40%. two-third of our jobs come from small businesses. this one tax would actually tax about 53% of small business income. it's expected to cost us 710,000 jobs. and you know what? it doesn't even pay for 10% of their proposed deficit spending increases. what we are saying is lower tax rates across the board, and close loopholes, primarily to the higher income people. we have three bottom lines. don't raise the deficit. don't raise taxes on the middle class. and don't lower the share of income that is borne by the high-income earners. he'll keep saying this $5 trillion plan. it's been discredited by six
other studies and even their own deputy campaign manager acknowledged it wasn't correct. >> well, let's talk about this 20%. you have refused-- and again-- to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20% croos the board tax cut. do you actually have the specifics or are you still working on it and that's why you won't tell voters? >> different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. you see, i understand-- >> do you have the specifics? do you have them-- do you know exactly what you're doing. >> look at what mitt romney-- look at what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did. they worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. what we're saying is here's our framework. lower tax rates 20%. we raise did billion 1.2 trillion through income taxes. we forgo about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. what we're saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher income taxpayers so more
of their income is taxed which has a broader base of taxation. >> can i translate. >> so we can lower tax rates across the board. >> i hope i'm going to get time to respond. >> you'll get time. >> we want to work with congress on how best to achieve this. >> no specifics. >> what we're saying is lower tax rates 20%. start with the wellie. work with congress-- >> you guarantee this math will add up. >> six studies have guaranteed. six studies have guaranteed this-- >> vice president biden. >> let me have a chance to translate. >> i'll come back in a second, right? >> first of all, i was there with ronald reagan. he gave specific to what he was going to cut, number one, in terms of tax expenditures. number two, 97% of the small business in america pay less than-- make less than $250,000. let me teal you who some of other small businesses are, hedge funds that make 600, 800 million a year. that's who they count as small business because they're
pass-through. let's look at how sincere they e.e. governor romney on "60 minutes--" i guess it was about 10 days ago-- was asked, governor you pay 14% on $20 million. someone making $50,000 pays more than that. do you think that's fair? he said oh, yes, that's they are, that's fair. and they're going-- you think these guys are going to go out there and cut those loopholes. the biggest loophole they take advantage of is the carried interest loophole and capital gains loophole. they exempt that. there's not enough it's reason why the a.a.i. study, the american enterprise institute study, the tax policy study, the reason they say taxes will go up on the middle class, the only way you can find $45 trillion in loopholes is cut the mortgage deduction for middle class people. cut health care deduction on middle class people. take away their ability to get a tax break to send their kids to college. >> is he wrong about that? >> he is wrong about that. >> how's that? >> you can cut tax rates by 20%
and preserve the these for middle class -- >> not mathematically possible. >> it is mathematiccably possible. it's been done before. >> it has never been done before. >> it's been done a couple of times now you're jack kennedy? ( laughter ) this is amazing. >> republicans and democrats, have worked together on this. i understand you guys aren't used to doing bipartisan views-- >> we told each other what we were going to do. we said here are the things we're going to cut. >> here's the framework. we'll fill in the details. >> fill in the details. >> that's how you get things done. let me say this way. >> that's come fraig republican congress working bipartisanly, a 7% rating? come on. >> mitt romney was governor of massachusetts where 87% of the legislators he served with were democrats. he didn't demonize them. he didn't demagogue them. he met with those party leaders every week. he reached across the aisle. he didn't comp promise principle. >> you saw what happened.
>> he balanced the budget. >> if he did such a great job ifour times without raising taxes. >> why isn't he contesting massachusetts. >> vice president, what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy that would substantially reduce-- >> just let the taxes expire like they're supposed to on those million arizona. we don't-- we can't afford $800 billion going to people making a minimum of $1 million. they do not need that, martha. those 120,000 families make $8 million a year. middle-class people need the help. why does my friend cut out the tuition tax credit for them? why does he go after-- >> can you declare anything off limits? >> yeah, we're saying close loopholes on high income people. >> home mortgage deduction. >> can you guarantee no one making less than $100,000 will have a mortgage deduction impact. >> he keeps trying to make you think it's some movie star hedge
fund guy. >> 97% of the small businesses make less than $250,000 a year would not be affected one bit. >> this taxes a million people. a million small businesses. >> 97%. >> the small businesses who are our greatest job creators. >> and you're going to increase the defense budget. >> we're not going to cut the defense budget. >> you're of. >> you're increasing $2 billion-- >> more than that no massive defense increase. >> you want to get into defense now? >> yes, i do, i do, because that's another math question. how do you do that? >> so they proposed a $478 billion cut to defense to begin with. now we have another $500 billion cut to defense that's lurking on the horizon. they insisted upon that cut being involveed in the debt negotiations. >> let's put the automatic defense cuts aside okay. let's put those aside. >> i want to go back to that.
>> no one wants that. i want to know how you do the math and have this increase in defense spend. >> $2 trillion. >> you don't cut defense by $1 trillion. that's what we're talking about. >> who is cutting it by $1 trillion. >> we're going to cut 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 marines, 120 cargo planes. we're going to push the-- >> drawing down one war and one war? >> if these cuts go through the our navy will be the smallest it has been since before worl worlr i. this invites weakness. do we believe in peace through strength? you bet we did do. that means you don't impose these devastating cuts on our military. we're saying don't cut the military by $1 trillion. not increase it by $1 trillion. don't cut it by $1 trillion. >> quickly, vice president biden on this, i want to move on. >> we don't cut it. and i know we don't want to use the fancy word sequester, the automatic cut. that was part of a debt deal that they asked for. and let me tell you what my
friend said at a press aof conference announces his support of the deal. he said and i'm paraphrasing, we've been looking for this moment for a long time. >> can i tell what you that meant? we had been looking for bipartisanship for a long time. >> the bipartisanship is what he voted for, for automatic cuts in defense if they didn't act. they asked for another-- look, the military says we need a smaller, leaner army. we need more special forces. we need-- we don't need more m1 tanks. >> some of the military. >> not some of the military. that was the decision of the joint chiefs of staff. recommended to us, and agreed to by the president. >> who answered to a civilian leader. >> they made the recommendation first. >> let's move on to afghanistan. >> can i get-- >> i'd like to move on to afghanistan and that's one of the biggest expenditures this country has made, in dollars, and more importantly, in lives. we just passed sad milestone of losing 2,000 u.s. troops there in this war.
more than 50 of them were killed this year by the very afghan forces we are trying to help. notice, we've reached the recruiting goal for afghan forces. we've degraded al qaeda. so tell me, why not leave now. what more can we really accomplish? is it worth more american lives. >> we don't want to lose the gains we've gotten. we want to make sure that the taliban does not come back in and give al qaeda a safe haven. we agree with the administration on their 2014 transition. look, when i think about afghanistan, i think about the incredible job that our troops have done. you've been there more than the two of us combined. the first time i was there in 2002, it was amazing to me what they were facing. i went to kandahar before the surge, and i sat down with a young private in the 82nd from an indian reservation who told me what he did every day and i was in awe. to see what they had in front of them. and then to go back there in december to go through helmund
with the marines to see that they had accomplished. it's nothing short of amazing. what we don't want to do is lose the gains we've gotten. now, we've disagreed from time to time on a few issues. we would have more likely taken into account, the recommendations from our commanders, general petraeus, admiral moen on troop levels throughout this year's fighting season. we've been skeptical about negotiating with the taliban, especially while they're shooting at uts. but we want to see the 2014 transition be successful, and that means we want to make sure our commanders have what they need to make sure that it is successful so that this does not once again become a launching pad for terrorists. >> vice president biden. >> market alet's keep our eye on the ball. the reason i've been in out out of afghanistan and iraq 20 times. i've been up in the konar valley, throughout that whole country, mostly in a helicopter, and sometimes in a vehicle. the fact is we went there for one reason-- to get those people
who killed americans. al qaeda. we've decimated al qaeda central. we have eliminated osama bin laden. that was our purpose. and in fact, in the meantime, what we said we would do, we would help train the afghan military. it's their responsibility to take over their own security. that's why with 49 of our aflies afghanistan we've agreed to a gradual draw-down so we're out of there by the year 20-- in the year 2014. my friend and the governor say it's based on conditions, which means it depends. it does not depend. for us. it is the responsibility of the afghans to take care of their own security. we have trained over 315,000 mostly without incident. there have been more than two dozen cases of green on blue, where americans have been killed. if we do not-- if the measures
the military has taken do not take hold, we will not go on joint patrols. we will not train in the field. we'll only train in the-- in the army bases that exist there. but we are leaving. we are leaving in 2014. period. and in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. we've been in this war for over a decade. the primary objective is almost completed. now all we're doing is putting the kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. it's their responsibility. not america's. >> what-- what conditions could justify staying, congressman ryan? >> we don't want to stay. we want-- look, one of my best friends in janesville, a reservist, is at a forward operating base in eastern afghanistan right now. our wives are best friends. our daughters are best friends. i want-- i want him and all of
our troops to come home as soon and safely as possible. we want to make sure 2014 is successful. that's why we want to make sure that we give our commanders what they say they need to make it successful. we don't want to extend beyond 2014. that's point we're make. you know, if it was just this, i feel like we would be able to call this a success. but it's not. what we are witnessing as we turn on our television screens these days is the absolute unraveling of the obama foreign policy. problems are growing at home but jobs-- problems are growing abroad but jobs aren't growing here at home. >> let me go back to this. he says we're absolutely landfall ileavingin 2014. you're saying that's not an absolute but you won't talk about what conditions would justify it. >> we don't want to broadcast to our enemies, put a date on our calendar, wait us out-- >> but you agree with the
timeline. >> we do agree with the timeline and transition, but what we-- what any administration will do in 2013 is assess the situation to see how best to complete this timeline. >> we will leave in 2014. >> what we do not want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less and our enemies more-- we don't want to embolden our enemies to hold and wait out for us and then take over. >> market athat's a bizarre statement. >> that's why we want to make sure-- >> 49 of our allies-- hear me, 49 of our allies signed on to this position. >> and we're reading they want to pull out early. >> 49, 49 of our allies said out in 2014. it's the responsibility of the afghans. we have other responsibilities-- >> which is-- which is what we agree with. >> we have soldiers and marines, we have afghan forces murdering our forces over there. the taliban is-- do you think taking advantage of this
timeline? >> look, the taliban-- what we found out, and you saw it in iraq, martha. unless you set a timeline, baghdad, in the case of iraq, and kabul in the case of afghanistan, will not step up. they're happy to let us continue to do the job. international security forces to do the job. the only way they step up is say, "fell as, we're leaving. we've trained you. step up. step up." >> let me go back-- >> that's only way it works. >> let me go back to the surge troops that we put in there. and you brought this up, congressman ryan. i have talked to a lot of troops. i've talked to senior officers who were concerned that the surge troops were pulled out during the fighting season and some of them saw that as a political-- as a political move. so can you tell me, vice president biden, what was the military reason for bringing those surge troops home before the fighting season ended?
>> by the way, when the president announced the surge, you'll remember, market ahi said the surge will be out by the end of the summer. the military said the surge will be out. nothing political about this. before the surge occurred, so you be a little straight with me, here, too. before the surge occurred. we said they'll be out by the end of the summer. that's what the military said. the reason for that is it-- >> the military follows orders. i mean, trust me, there are people who were concerned about pulling out on the fighting system. >> there are people that are concerned, but not the joint chiefs. that was their recommendation in the oval office to the president of the united states of america. i sat there. i'm sure you'll find someone who disagrees with the pentagon. i'm positive you'll find that within the military. but that's not case here. and, secondly, the reason why the military said that is you cannot wait and have a cliff. it takes, you know, months and months and months to draw down
forces. >> let me try and illustrate the issue here. because i think this can get a little confusing. we've all met with general allen and general scarapaty to talk about fighting seasons. here's the way it works. the mountain passes fill in with snow. the talibans and terrorist and the aconnie come over from pakistan to fight our men and women. when it fills in with snow they can't do it. that's when we call the fighting season. in the warm months fighting get really high. in the winter it goes down. so when admiral mullen and general petraeus came to congress and said if you pull these people out before the fighting season is ended, it puts people at risk. yes, we drew 22,000 troops down last month, but the troops still there, who had the same mission, counter-insurgency are doing it with fewer people. that makes them less safe. we're sending fewer people out
in all these hot spots to do the same job that they were supposed to do a month ago. >> because we turned it over to-- we turned it over to the afghan troops we trained. no one got pulled out that didn't get filled in by trained afghan personnel. and he's conflating two issues. the fighting season that petraeus was talking about and admiral mullen was the fighting season this spring. that's what he was talking about. he did not pull them out. >> the calendar works the same every year. >> it does work the same every year. >> spring, summer, fall, it's warm or it's not. they're still fighting us. they're still coming over the pazs. they're still comin coming in to zabul, to all of these areas, but we are sending fewer people to the front to fight them. >> that's right, because that's the afghan responsibility. we've trained them. >> not in the east. >> let's move to another war.
>> not in the east? >> rceast. >> that's the most dangerous place in the world. >> that's why we should send americans in-- you'd rather americans go in to do the jobs? >> we're already sending americans to do the job but fewer of them. >> that's right. we're sending in more afghans to do the job. afghans to do the job. >> let's move to another war, the civil war in syria. there are estimates that more than 25,000, 30,000 people have now been killed. in march of the last year, president obama explainedded the military action taken in sirria, saying it was in national interest to go in. so why doesn't the same logic apply in syria? >> it is a different country. it is five times as large geographically. it has one-fifth the population-- that is, libya. one-fifth the population, five
times as large geographically. it's in a part of the world where you're not going to see whatever would come from that war. it would seep into a regional war. you are in a country that is heavily populated in the midof the most dangerous area in the world. and in fact, in fact, it blows up and the wrong people gain control, it's going to have impact on the entire region causing potentially regional wars. we are working hand in glove with the turks, with the jordanians, with the saudis and with all the people in the region, attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when assad goes and he will go, there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an al qaeda-sponsored government thats if on. and all this loose talk of my friend governor romney and the congressman about how we're going to do-- we could do so much more in there. what more would they do other than put american boot on the ground? the last thing america needs is
to get into another ground war in the middle east, requiring tens of thousands, if not well over 100,000 american forces. they are the facts. they are the facts. now every time the governor is asked about this, he doesn't say anything-- he-- he goes up with a whole lot of verbiage, but when he gets pressed he says, no, he would not do anything different than we are doing now. are they proposing putting american troops on the ground. putting american aircraft in the airspace? if that's what they're proposing? if they do, they should speak up and say so. that's not what they're saying. we are doing it exactly like we need to do to identify those forces who in fact will provide for a stable government and not cause a regional sunni-shia war when bashar assad falls. >> congressman ryan. >> nobody is proposing to send
troops to syria. american troops. now, let me say it this way. how would we do things differently? we wouldn't refer to bashar assad as a reformer when he's killing his own civilians with his russian-provided weapons. we wouldn't be outsourcing our foreign policy to the united nations giving vladimir putin veto power over our efforts to try and deal with this issue. he's veto three of them. hillary clinton went to russia to try and convince him not to do so. they thwarted her efforts. she said they were on the wrong side of history. she was right about that. this is one more example how the russia reset is not working. where are we? after sphwirnl pressure mounted then president obama said assad should go. it's been over a year. the man has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people, and more foreign fighters are spilling into this country. so the longer this has gone on, the more people-- groups like al qaeda are going in.
we could have more easily identified the free syrian army, the freedom fighters, working with our allies, turks, the saudis, had we had a better plan in place to begin with working through our allies. but no, we waited for kofi annan to try and come up with an agreement through the u.n. that bought bashar assad time. we gave russia veto power, and meanwhile 30,000 syrians dead. >> what would my friend do differently? if you notice he never answers the question. >> we would not be going through the u.n. in all of these things. >> you don't go through the u.n. we are in the process now and have been for months in making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training is getting to those forces that we believe, the turks believe, the jor deignians believe, the saudis believe are the free force inside of syria.
that is under way. our allies were all on the same page-- nato as well as our arab allies in terms of trying to get a settlement. that was their idea. we're the ones that said enough. with regard to the reset not working, the fact of the matter is that russia has a different interest in syria than we do, and that's not in our interest. >> what happens if assad does not fall? congressman ryan, what happens to the region? what happens if he hangs on? what happens if he does? >> then iran keeps their greatest ally in the region. he's a sponsor of terrorism. he'll probably continue slaughtering his people. we and the world community will lose our credibility on this. look, he mentioned the reset-- >> so what would romney-ryan do about that credibility. >> we agree with the same red line, actually, they do on chemical weapons but not putting american troop in, other than to secure those chemical weapons. they're right about that. but what we should have done earlier is work with those
freedom fighters, those dissidents in syria. we should not have called bashar assad a reformer-- >> what's your criteria what's your criteria-- >> we should not have waited for russia to give us the green light. they're still arming the man. iran is flying flight over iraq-- >> and the opposition is being awrmd. >> to help assad. if we had the status of forces agreement that the vice president said he would bet his vice presidenciy in iraq we probably would have been able to prevent that. we failed to achieve that as well. >> what's your criteria for intervention? >> in syria? >> worldwide. >> what is in the national interest of the security people. >> how about humanitarian. >> it's got to be in the strategic national interest of our our country. >> no humanitarian? >> each will come up with its own set of circumstances but putting american troops on the
ground. that's got to be within the national security interest of the american people. >> i want to-- we're almost out of time here-- >> things like embargoes and sanctions over-flights, those are things that don't put american troops on the ground. but if you're talking about putting american troops on the ground. only in our national security interests. >> i want to move on, and i want to return home for these last few questions. this debate is indeed historic. we have two catholic candidates. first time on a stage such as this. and i would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. please talk about how you came to that decision. talk about how your religion played a part in that. and, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country, please talk personally about this if you could. congressman ryan. >> i don't see how a person can
separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. our faith informs us in everything we do. my faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable. of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. now, you want to ask basically why i'm pro life? it's not simply because of my catholic faith. that's a factor, of course, but it's also because of reason and science. you know, i think about 10 and a half years ago, my wife and i went to mercy hospital in janesville, where i was born, for our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child and we saw that heartbeat. our little baby was in the shape of a bean and to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child, liza, bean. now i believe that life begins at conception. that's why those-- those are the
reasones yes i'm pro life. now, i understand this is a difficult issue. and i respect people who don't agree with me on this. but the policy of a romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. what troubles me more is how this administration has handled al all of these issues. look at what they're doing through obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. they're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on catholic charities, catholic hospitals. our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties. and with respect to abortion, the democratic party used to say they want it to be safe, legal, and rare. now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. taxpayer funding in obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. the vice president himself went
to china and said he sympathized or wouldn't second guess the one-child policy of forced abortion and sterilizations. that to me is pretty extreme. >> vice president biden. >> my religion defines who i am. and i've been a practicing catholic my whole life. and it is particularly informed my social doctrine. catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. with regard to-- with regard to abortion, i accept my church's position on abortion as a-- what we call a de fete doctrine. life begins at conception. that's the church's judgment. i accept it in my personal life. but i refuse to impose it on equally devote christians and muslims and jews.
i just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. i do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that-- women, that they can't control their body. it's a decision between them and their doctor. in my view, and the supreme court. i'm not going to interfere with that. with regard to the assault on the catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear. no religious institution, catholic or otherwise, including catholic social services, georgetown hospital, mercy hospital-- any hospital-- none has to either refer for contraception none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. that is a fact. that is a fact. now, with regard to the way in which the-- we differ, my friend says that he-- well, i guess he
accepts governor romney's position now because in the past he has argued that there was rape, forceable rape. he argued in the case of rape or incest, it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. i just fundamentally disagree with my friend. >> congressman ryan. >> all i'm saying is if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn't change the definition of life. that's a principle. the policy of a romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. now, i've got to take issue with the catholic church and religious liberty. >> you have on catholic social doctrine take issue. >> why would they keep suing you? it's a distinction without a difference. >> i want to go back to the abortion question. if the romney-ryan ticket is elected, should those who
believe abortion should remain legal be worried? >> we don't think that unelected judges should make this decision that people, through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination. >> the court-- the next president will get one or two supreme court nominees. that's how close "vo v wade" is. ask yourself with robert bourqe be chief justice, for mr. romney, who do you think he's likely to appoint, someone like scalia or someone else on the court, far right, that would outlaw planned-- excuse me, outlaw abortion? i suspect that would happen. i guarantee you that will not happen. we pick two people. we pick people who are open minded. they've been good justices. so keep an eye on the supreme court. >> was there a litmus test on
them? >> there was no litmus test. we picked people with an open mind, did not come with an agenda. >> i'm going to move on to this closing question because we are running out of time. certainly known, you've said it here tonight, that the two of you respect our troops enormously. your son has served, and perhaps some day your children upon serve as well. i recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier who said that this presidential campaign has left him dismayed. he told me "the ads are so negative and they are all tearing down each other rather than building up the country. of." what would you say to that american hero about this campaign, and at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone? vice president biden. >> i would say to him the same thing i say to my son. you diwho did serve a year in iraq. we only have one truly sacred obligation as a government. and that's to equip those we
send into harm's way and care for those who come home. that's the only sacred obligation we have. everything else falls behind that. i would also tell him that the fact that he, this decorated soldier you talked about, fought for his country, that that should be honored. he should not be thrown into a category of the 47% who don't pay their taxes while he was out there fighting and not having to pay taxes. and somehow not taking responsibility. i would also tell him that there are things that have occurred in this campaign and occur in evercampaign that i'm sure both of us regret anyone having said, particularly in these-- these-- these special new groups that can go out there and raise all the money they want, not have to identify themselves, and say the most scurrilous things about the other candidate. it's-- it's an abomination. but the bottom line here is i'd
ask that hero you referenced to take a look at whether or not governor romney or president obama has the conviction to help lift up the middle class, restore them to where they were before this great recession hit and they got wiped out, or whether or not he's going to continue to focus on taking care of only the very wealthy, not asking them to make any part of the deal to bring them-- bring back the middle class, the economy of this country. i would ask him to take a look at whether the president of the united states has acted wisely in the use of force and whether or not the slip-shod comments being made by governor romney serve our interests very well. but there are things that have been said in campaigns that i-- i find i find not very appealing. >> congressman ryan. >> first of all, i thank him for his service to our country. second of all, i would say we're
not going to impose the devastating cuts on our military which compromise their safety and mission. and then i say you have a president who ran for a president four years ago promising hope and change who has now turned this campaign into attack, blame, and defame. you see, if you don't have a good record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone to run from. that was what president obama said in 2008. it's what he's doing right now. look at all the string of broken promises. if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. try telling that to the 20 million people who are projected to lose their health insurance if obamacare goes through. the 7.4 million seniors who are going to lose it. remember when he said this-- i guarantee if you make less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up. of the 21 tax increases in obamacare, 12 hit the middle class. or remember when he said, health insurance premiums guilty down $2500 per family per year. they've gone up $3,000 and
they're expected to go up another $27 hon. remember he said i promise by the end of my first term i'll cut the deficit in half in four years. we've had four budgets, four $trillion-deficits. a debt crise is coming. we can't keep spending and borrowing like this. we can't keep spending money we don't have. leaders run to problems to fix problems. president obama has not even put a credible plan on the table in any of his four years to deal with this debt crisis. i passe passed two budgets to dl with this. mitt romney has put ideas on the table. we've got to tackle this debt crise before it tackles us. the president likes to say he has a plan. he gave a speech. we asked him budget office, can we see the plan? they sent us the press secretary. he gave us a copy of the speech. we ask the congressional budget office, tell us what the plan is. they said it's a speech. we can't estimate speeches. that's what we get in this
administration. speeches. mitt romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. his lifetime of experience, his proven track record of bipartisanship. and what do we have from the president. he broke his big promise to bring us together to solve the problems. i would tell him we don't have to settle for this. >> i hope i get equal time. >> you will get a few minutes, a few seconds, really. >> the two budgets of congressman introduced have eviscerated all the things the middle class cares about. he will knot 19 million people off medicare. it will kick 200,000 children off early education. it will eliminate the tax credit people have to be able to send their children to college. it cuts education by $450 billion. it it does-- it does virtually nothing except continue to increase the tax cuts for the very wealthy. and, you know, we've had enough of this.
my-- the idea that they're so concerned about these deficits. as i pointed out, he voted to put two wars on a credit card. he did. >> we're going to the closing statements. >> just a second. >> you're going to have your closing statement. >> not raising taxes is not cutting taxes. by the way our budget. >> we have not raised taxes. >> 3% a year instead of $4.5%. >> not spend-- >> let me-- i want to talk to you very briefly before we go to closing statements about your own personal character. if you are elected, what could you both give to this country as a man, as a human being, that no one else could? >> honesty. no one else could? there are plenty of fine people who could lead this country. but what you need are people who when they say they're going to do something, they go do it. what you need are when people see problems, they offer solutions to fix those problems. we're not getting that. look, we can grow this economy faster.
that's what our five-point plan for a stronger middle class is about. 12 million jobs, higher take home pay, getting people out of poverty into the middle class. going with proven pro growth policies to put people back to work. putting ideas on the table. working with democrats. that works sometimes. >> vice president, can we get to that issue what you could bring as a man, a human being. could do you about 15 seconds? >> he gets 40 i get 15. >> he didn't have 40. he didn't have 40. >> my record stands for itself. i never say anything i don't mean. everybody knows whatever i say i do. and my whole life has been devoted to leveling the playing field for middle class people. giving them an even break, treating main street and wall street the same, hold them to the same responsibility. look at my record. it's been all about the middle class. theatre people who grow this country. we think you grow this country from the middle out, not from the top down. >> we now turn to the candidates for their closing statements.
thank you, gentlemen, and that coin toss, again, has vice president biden starting with the closing statement. >> well, let me say at the outset that i want to thank you, martha, for doing this, and the fact is, we're in a situation where we inherited a god-awful circumstance, people were in real trouble. we acted to move to bring relief to the people who needed the most help now. and in the process, we, in case you haven't noticed, we have strong disagreements but you probably detected my frustration with their attitude about the american people. my friend says that 30% of the american people are takers. romney point out 47% of the people won't take responsibility. he's talking about my mother and father. he's talking about the places i grew up in my neighbors in
scranton. he's talking about the people that built this country. all they're looking for martha, all they're look for is an even shot. when you've given them a shot they've done it. when you level the playing field they've been able to move. all they want is peace of mind. and the president and i are not going to rest until the playing field is leveled, they have a clear shot and peace of mind. until they can turn to their kid and say with a degree of confidence, "honey, it's going to be okay. it's going to be okay." that's what this is all about. >> congressman ryan. >> i want to thank you as well, martha. danville, kentucky, centre college, and i want to thank you, joe. it's been an honor to engage in this critical debate. we face a very big choice. what kind of country are we going to be? what kind of country are we going to give our kids? president obama he had his chance. he made his choices. his economic agenda, more
spending, more borrowing, higher taxes, a government takeover of health care. it's not working. it's failed to create the jobs we need. 23 million americans are struggling for work today. 15% of american americans are i. this is not what a real recovery looks like. you deserve better. mitt romney and i want to earn your support. we're offering real reforms for a real recovery for every american. mitt romney is experienced, his ideas, his solutions is uniquely qualified to get this job done. at a time when we have a jobs crise in america, wouldn't it be nice to have a job creator in the white house? the choice is clear. a stagnant economy that promotes more government acciden dependea dynamic growing economy that promotes opportunities and jobs. mitt romney and i will not duck the tough issues. and we will not blame others for
the next four years. we will take responsibility and we will not try to replace our founding principles. we will reapply our founding principles. the choice is clear-- and the choice rests with you, and we ask you for your vote. thank you. >> and thank you both again. thank you very much. this concludes the vice presidential debate. please tune in next tuesday for the second presidential debate at hofstra university in new york. i'm martha raddatz upon abc news. i do hope all of you go to the polls. have a good evening. ( applause ) >> pelley: and so ends the one and only debate among the vice president, vice presidential candidates. their families joining them on
stage now. 90 minutes, most of which vice president joe biden seemed to be on offense. and republican congressman paul ryan on defense but staying cool, calm, and collected throughout. i want to bring in our cbs news political director john dickerson, and the cohost of "cbs this morning" norah o'donnell into the conversation. norah, let me start request you. what did you hear in the debate so far? >> democrats said they wanted to let joe biden be joe biden and heave that and more. he was pugnacious. he was combative. and he took ryan at every turn. he tried to have the last word on every single issue whether it
was libya, iran, afghanistan, taxes, medicare. and i think the goal for joe biden was to play cleanup after last week's lackluster debate performance by president obama. and that was his goal tonight and he hit a lot of key points that obama failed to make in that last debate. >> pelley: what vice president biden had to do is act as a circuit breaker, essentially. the romney campaign came out of that first debate in denver with a great deal of momentum and it was biden's job to be a firewall, to break that momentum, john dickerson. >> he did it for democrats. i think democrats are going to run this back on their tivos and watch the greatest hits. he touched on the 47%. he talked about detroit. he talked about the duplicity he sees in the romney campaign. president obama said his fault was that he was too polite. joe biden cannot be faulted for being too polite. there's an old line attributed to bill clinton that says the other guy can't talk if your fist is in your mouth.
he wahe was interesting. i don't independents are going to like that. thithis was a message the democs will love and that will do something to stop that momentum for this campaign. >> pelley: one of the things the president was criticized for by many in the debate in denver was not bringing up that secretly recorded moment during a romney fund-raiser in which mr. romney said 47% of americans don't pay income taxes and, therefore, it was not his job to care about them. he would never persuade them. the president didn't bring that up. but vice president biden was more than happy to, tonight. and let's have a look at that exchange. >> for a guy who says 47% of the american people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives, my friend recently in a speech in washington said 30% of the american people are takers. these people are my mom and dad.
the people i grew up with. my neighbors. they pay more effective tax than governor romney pays in his federal income tax. they were elderly people who in fact are living off of social security. they are veterans and people fighting in afghanistan right now whoare-- quote-- not paying any taxes. i've had it up to here thisw this notion that 47%-- it's about time they take some responsibility here. >> mitt romney's a good man. he cares about 100% of americans in this country. and with respect to that quote, i think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don't come out of your mouth the right way. ( laughter ). >> but i always say what i mean. and so does romney. >> we want everybody to succeed. >> pelley: of course, that was a reference to the fact that the vice president is given from time to time to saying things that he later regrets in public. but certainly this debate was a lot more entertaining than the debate in denver, norah? >> incredibly different than the
first debate. a full exchange on a whole number of issues, in part because they did nine different topics, 10 minutes each on that. i think there was also a real generational contrast. joe biden is 69 years old. paul ryan is 42 years old. and it looked like the vice president tried to take advantage of that by repeatedly smiling and laughing and then saying that's a bunch of malarkey. that's a bunch of stuff. it was almost like he was trying to say, boy, let me teach you something about what i've learned since i've been in office a little bit longer than you. whether that play well or not, we'll see. john brought up independents. there are a lot of republicans i talked to tonight who said joe biden looked unglued. people will see this debate differently, but i think the main goal was joe biden was trying to put paul ryan on the defensive for the entire debate. >> he did everything but pat him on the head. he was trying to turn paul ryan into dan quayle. paul ryan was not. he had a solid performance, but he was always on defense. you saw in the clip you played. ryan was defending romney.
what was biden doing, defending his mom and dad, the 47%, the middle class. and that's the message that the obama information wanted out there. we are fighting, we are passionate, we go overboard maybe a little bit in defense of the middle class and wanted to keep ryan bollixed up. >> pelley: one of the subcontexts is voters might be looking at both men thinking which one of these guys could be president and that goes to norah's point that vice president biden was sort of looking askance at paul ryan and sort of taking advantage of his youth. >> reporter: i think there's a down side, potentially, to that. the knock against the clinton administration that the romney people are trying to play on is that they're arrogant. they've gotten kind of lax. they've gotten settled with themselves. and this notion that kind of you can laugh off the things-- that could for some voters come across as a little bit too proud of yourself when you have presided over an economy that's this week. >> pelley: norah? >> that's true. itt has been the main argument
against this administration, the main headwind that president obama and have faced is the economy. however,y we did see a better jobs report than expect, dipping to 7.8%. and you saw paul ryan try to talk about well, in scranton, pennsylvania, where you're from, joe biden, it's 10% there. and this argument about whether the economy set going better or getting worse. and paul ryan was trying to make the case in some cities, especially where there are lots of working class whites, the base of the republican party, that the economy is getting worse. >> pelley: and he was really driving that point home. he said that the unemployment rate in scranton now is 10%. when president obama took office it was 8.5%. and he looked over at vice president biden and rolled his eyes. >> that's right. you know, another thing that the vice president biden did, again, always trying to take it back to the middle class, is when he would turn to the camera and look into the camera andn consistent with the malarkey, called it a bunch of stuff,
called it loose talk, and slipshod he looked to the camera and said who do you trust? and that was kind of the signature line that they want to take-- >> right. this is on television, right? people are watching. and as you pointed out, joe biden looked into camera, and said, folks, who do you trust, multiple times when there was a back and forth over the facts of a certain issue. what joe biden was doing there was trying to capitalize on what is of what we've seen in the polls that most americans think that barack obama understands the issues facing middle class americans more, and that trust issue, who do you trust? because at the end of the day, scott, when you go in and have to make that final vote, it is who do you trust more to be president of the united states? and that's why biden, i think, tried that technique of looking into the camera directly. >> pelley: one of the things that the romney campaign talks about is that they are not going to have a big deficit from their tax cuts, because they're going to eliminate a number of deductions, but they never say which ones they are. it's sort of an achilles' heel
and that is one that the vice president attacked today. let's look at a little piece of videotape in which the vice president and representative ryan were talking about, enum rathe the tax deductions that would come under a romney administration. >> the only way you can find $5 trillion in loopholes is cut the mortgage deduction for middle class people, cut the health care deduction for middle class people, take away their ability to get a tax break to send their kids to college. that's why they're-- >> is he wrong about that? >> he is wrong about that. >> how is that? >> you can cut tax rates by 20% and preserve the important preferences for middle class taxpayers. >> it is not mathematically possible. >> it is mathematically possible. it has been done before. >> it has never been done before. >> about done done a couple of times. >> jack kennedy-- >> oh, now you're jack kennedy. >> ronald reagan-- >> pelley: there's the jack kennedy line from the vice
presidential debate in which lloyd benson told dan quayle that he was no jack kennedy. but right there was a very good example where you could see the vice president's technique. he was stepping on ryan over and over. every time ryan got going on something, biden would laugh, step on him, cut him off, he was being very aggressive. >> he was like the guy in the barco lounger yelling at the tv while being involved in the debate itself which comes across, if you're trying to be the guy speaking to the middle class, that's the way it goes. but this question of math is quite crucial because this is-- as norah said, who do you trust when the hard math is being done. both the president and mitt romney have said we've got to schinch this budget in a time of scarcity. who is going to do that? who is going to be in charge of that when the hard cutting has it to get done? >> pelley: we have nancy cordes and jan crawford covering the romney and obama campaigns. and they're joining us now from kentucky. nancy, let me go to you first.
what's your observation there? >> reporter: well, scott, whether vice president widen's antics were over the top or just right depends who you talk to. democrats contend they are thrilled. they say he had all the energy that president obama was missing last week. republicans i'm talking to here in this spin room contend he was unhinged. i just heard senator ron johnson of wisconsin describe him as incredibly rude. but there is no question that in that exchange that you just played and others, congressman ryan may have started out making good points, but he often didn't get to the end of them because vice president biden interrupted him. >> pelley: jan crawford is covering the romney campaign for us. and she's there in kentucky as well. jan. >> reporter: well, scott, one thing that i think is so interesting about this debate tonight was that paul ryan was considered this man of substance. he was the numbers guy, the policy whiz, someone who could
take out these powerpoint presentations and deliver them for an hour before voters in some small town in wisconsin and instead this was very much a debate that is going to be discussed on issues of style and that clip you showed really demonstrates that. those are substantive issues. they were trying to discuss. and look at biden interrupting paul ryan with humor, making a joke, of course, about jack kennedy. of course, many of the romney campaign advisers are saying they think ryan did well, they're talking about biden as nancy said being over the top but i think i spoke with one who i think really nailed it. he says he believes biden may have helped the president with his base. and i said that really was an important thing for him to do right after what the president did last week because many of his supporters were kind of demoralized after that performance and he said it was. but what about the independents. what about the undecides. they may well be turned off by some of the things we saw from the vice president tonight. we can see paul ryan holding his
own on the stage, but whether the independents will see him as a man of knowledge and substance, that's an open question, scott. >> pelley: jan, thank you very much. still ahead, we're going to have results of an instant poll that we've done tonight of uncommitted voters who were watching to give us their impressions of what they saw. cbs news coverage of the vice presidential debate will continue with that in just a moment. ,,,,,,,,,,
beep-bop-boop-bop boop-beep. [monotone] she says, "switch to progressive and you could save hundreds." call or click today. coverage of the vice presidential debate. i'm scott pelley along with john dickerson, cbs news director, and norah o'donnell cohost of "cbs this morning" one of the things that came up during the debate was the romney campaign's criticism of the obama administration's stimulus of the economy. and how much money was spent and how much money was, as they like to say, borrowed from china to pay for all of that. but joe biden came prepared for that line of attack tonight. he was loaded for bear.
and let's have a look at what he had to say to congressman ryan. >> he sent me two letters saying, "by the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of wisconsin." we sent millions of dollars. you know why-- >> you did ask for simulous money correct. >> sure he did. >> on two occasions we advocated for constituents applying for grants. that's what we do. we do that for all constituents. >> i love that, i love that. this is such a bad program and he writes me a letter-- writes the department of energy saying the reason we need this stimulus, it will create growth and jobs. his words. and now he's sitting here lookag me. and by the way, that program, again, what the congress said was it was a model. less than .4% of waste and fraud in the program. and all this talk about cronyism. they investigated and investigated. they did not find one single piece of evidence. i wish he would just tell-- be a little more candid.
( laughter ). >> pelley: "just be a little more candid." what the vice president was talking about as a congressman paul ryan sent him a couple of letters that said, hey, we need some of that stimulus money, too, in the state of wisconsin. >> which as you noted congressman ryan did not dispute. he as well as some other republicans who criticized the stimulus funds sought some of that money for their own congressional districts. i think the other tactic that you saw joe biden using there was to suggest literally that the charges the republicans are making are laughable because he laughed every time paul ryan tried to make a charge. he laughed at that. and that was the technique he was using tonight. >> i think to the extent that that lives on, that moment. this is a moment that confirms the narrative that the obama campaign has been trying to lay out there, which is that the romney campaign says one thing, but they're going to do another. and that really-- you know, in these debates, the moments that live on are the ones that are the most important. since that one connects with an argument they've already been
making, that's something i think the romney campaign has to be very worried about. on the opposite side is the libya question. biden was very much on the sefensive, any that was something the romney campaign was really trying to push in this debate to talk about. >> pelley: it remains to be seen whether biden's strategy of interrupting, raising his voice, waving his hands, laughing in the split screen, will be to his benefit or whether people will find that rude and off putting. we will see. how do uncommitted voters think the candidates did tonight? we're going to have the results of that snap poll when cbs news coverage of the vice presidential debate continues. music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone.
by uncommitted we mean voters who have not made up their minds or could still change them. cbs news and g.f.k.'s knowledge panel put together a scientifically selected samples of about 500 of those voters to watch the debate tonight and afterward we asked them what they thought about it. anthony mason has the results of our instant poll. >> reporter: in democrats were hoping joe biden would put up a firewall for them tonight it look like he may have succeed. immediately after the debate we asked those uncommitted voters which candidate did the best job or won tonight's debate. fully half, 50%, said they thought joe biden did, paul ryan got 31% b19% of the uncommitted voters saw the debate as a tie. we asked now that the debate is over, which of the candidates can you relate to, you'll see a jump for both candidates. before the debate, 34% said they related to joe biden. that jumped to 55%. paul ryan saw a jump from 31% to 48%. the uncommitted we surveyed saw
both candidate as very knowledgeable. we asked after the debate who do you think was more knowledgeable. 85% said they saw joe biden as knowledgeable but 75% said they thought paul ryan was as well. finally we asked now that the debate is over which of the candidates has the ability to be an effective president if necessary. here joe biden saw significant improvement. going in 39% thought he could be an effective president. that jumped to 56%. ryan's moved much smaller from 45% to 49%. again, the big headline here the winner of the debate from the uncommitted voters we surveyed immediately afterwards was joe biden. 50% thought he was the winner tonight. scott. >> pelley: it appears both men did themselves a lot of good but the majority of the poll of the 500 uncommitted voters thought joe biden won this debate. >> reporter: remember, there are very few voters who have not made up their minds but they are the constituency both of these campaigns are reaching out to, especially in the bablgths
ground states. joe biden may have stopped some of themitt romney momentum. it's not clear if people will vote based on the debate. if you look back, the vice presidential debates do not influence people's votes. >> the president said he could not be more prouder. we were wondering whether they were-- those interruptions, the lawchg, the constant aggression would be a problem, and it suggests two things are interesting. one it didn't hurt biden too much, and also ryan's numbers went up enough. so it looks like uncommitted voters have thick skin for this kind of stuff. >> pelley: history shows plenty of examples of people, particularly in vice presidential debates, who have won the debate and lost the election. >> right. >> pelley: siewbs news coverage of the vice presidential debate will continue in just a moment. be h .
spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open for 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. (blowing sound) ask your doctor about spiriva. poll of voters, of 500 voters
who said they have not made up their minds or still could change their minds, a majority of them said that the vice president, joe biden, had won tonight's debate. but of course the real decision of who won tonight's debate is completely up to you. we're halfway flew the 2012 debates. next tuesday, president obama and mitt romney face off for the second time at hofstra university in hempstead, new york. the debate will take the form of a town hall meeting with undecided voters asking the questions. then the following monday, the final debate at lynn university in boca raton, florida. it's back to the original format with the focus in that debate on foreign policy. campaign 2012 coverage continues 24/7 at cbsnews.com. there will be more about tonight's debate on "cbs this morning" with charlie rose and norah o'donnell and gail king. until then, i'm scott pelley. i'll seal you tomorrow on the
you've mastered the art of rising and shining. you carry the weight of the world before carpool. you keep your cool in most uncool situations. all while looking really, really...good! there's no stopping you with natrol fast dissolve vitamins and supplements. you can take them without water, they dissolve up to 30 times faster than regular tablets and they come in great-tasting fruit flavors. count on natrol fast dissolve vitamins and supplements to support the greatness in you!